...if the government doesn't have a rock solid case against you, like they do here against this punk, then they'll do whatever they can to paint you as a terrorist so they can try you outside our legal system, and minimize your right to defend yourself.

Fusion bomb? WMDHome made bomb in a pressure cooker? Doesn't really seem like a WMD to me.

yeah... i dunno... i mean there were mass casualties, but this would mean that just about any bomber could be charged with this. not that i'm against it, i guess, but it does seem to lump it in with someone with a dirty bomb or sarin canister or something similar.

For purposes of federal criminal law, a "weapon of mass destruction" includes any "destructive device." 18 USC 2332a. A "destructive device" includes any bomb, grenade, rocket with more than four ounces of propellant, and any projectile launcher with a caliber over .50 inches (except for Attorney General approved shotguns). 18 USC 921. A potato gun is a weapon of mass destruction, if "designed for use as a weapon" and used against a U.S. national.

Ah, thanks for the knowledge. Sweet christ that's a pretty wide open definition.

Warlordtrooper:Does it matter? The military is not for things inside the us

Subby said he was a citizen (not a legal alien as I had thought), and I was wondering if that was really the case. Unless I'm wrong, and I well could be since IANAL, I was under the impression that citizens and non-citizens were treated differently in the law. I'm not implying he ought to be given a military trial---the question was more a matter of what KIND of civilian trial should he get? Since he's officially a citizen that negates the question anyway.

Of course, his defense will blame it on his older brother in an effort to get a reduction.

How about this: My older brother was the mastermind of the bomb plot and trigger man in the shooting. He threatened me with my life if I didn't go along with it. I was hiding out because I was scared and didn't know who to trust.

skullkrusher:FarkedOver: Let's hope this is handled at the state level rather than the federal level.

There is quite literally zero chance of that happening.

I wouldn't say zero. Couldn't the state choose to prosecute when the feds are done with him for state level crimes? If he somehow is found not guilty of the fed charges, couldn't the state indict? Even go through with it, just to have the sentence in place if he's ever given federal parole? For example, the murder of the MIT police officer. I suspect he won't be charged with that by the feds, but the state could if they so chose.

gilgigamesh:I doubt MA has any laws against terrorism or murder by weapon of mass destruction that would be required to prosecute this effectively.

"Terroristes shall be punished by Exposure to the Crowd and shall be dragged through the Township by Mule and pelted with Foodstuffs in the presence of no fewer than six Clergymen and the Governor" - MA General Law still on the books from 1677

FlashHarry:plus, he'll likely get the DP if he's convicted on federal charges, yes?

I can think of two mitigating factors. 1. His age. He's old enough to execute, but young enough that a jury might consider that. 2. The fact that it seems he was heavily influenced by his brother. Every single other aspect of the case are aggravating factors, though. It may be possible to cop a plea for life if he talks.

Good. terrorists need to be treated as the common criminals that they are. Don't elevate them to some special kind of special super special enemy warrior status. "Terror networks" should be treated as the criminal enterprises that are and prosecuted under RICO with the all the jail time and confiscation of personal assets that RICO allows.

Eirik:skullkrusher: FarkedOver: Let's hope this is handled at the state level rather than the federal level.

There is quite literally zero chance of that happening.

I wouldn't say zero. Couldn't the state choose to prosecute when the feds are done with him for state level crimes? If he somehow is found not guilty of the fed charges, couldn't the state indict? Even go through with it, just to have the sentence in place if he's ever given federal parole? For example, the murder of the MIT police officer. I suspect he won't be charged with that by the feds, but the state could if they so chose.

I'd imagine that MA could try him on charges in addition to the Fed charges but it certainly won't be in lieu of Fed charges. I am pretty sure double jeopardy would apply if he were first acquitted federally and then retried locally for the same crimes

Jument:FlashHarry: the kid is guilty as hell, but justice must be served.

This. No matter how heinous the charges or how solid the evidence, his rights must not be violated. Anyone who suggests otherwise basically hates America doesn't care about the law or our constitution.

For purposes of federal criminal law, a "weapon of mass destruction" includes any "destructive device." 18 USC 2332a. A "destructive device" includes any bomb, grenade, rocket with more than four ounces of propellant, and any projectile launcher with a caliber over .50 inches (except for Attorney General approved shotguns). 18 USC 921. A potato gun is a weapon of mass destruction, if "designed for use as a weapon" and used against a U.S. national.

Ah, thanks for the knowledge. Sweet christ that's a pretty wide open definition.

I suppose most of the characters in Big Bang Theory could be arrested for WMD possession.

Fusion bomb? WMDHome made bomb in a pressure cooker? Doesn't really seem like a WMD to me.

Yes, that's what I thought too. Seems like someone at the US Attorney's Office is trying to stretch the definition to sex up the charges. Once upon a time it was Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC) to cover anything that wasn't conventional explosives. Only the Soviets called it WMD and even they meant it the same way we did. But now you call it "Mass Destruction" and suddenly a large black powder or fertilizer bomb qualifies. No, it doesn't.

As for charging this guy, it's absolutely the right thing to do. He's here legally, with permanent residential status. For us to treat him differently is to turn our back on the Bill of Rights. We don't have lynch mobs anymore, no matter how loathsome and shiatty the perpetrator may be. To do otherwise is to shame our constitution and make us no better than the dictators we accuse as oppressive tyrants. We got laws and due process and WhatNot, folks. It protects the innocent and it also protects America as a nation when we can show, "yes, this guy's not a political prisoner, but a shiatbag and here's the evidence."

Nice charges. Kinda generic to avoid a long drawn out case, but decent.Next Week, George W. Bush gets charged for using weapons of mass destruction(Americas military) against the World. Canadas republican Prime Minister offers asylum for Bush and that comes with all the soggy animal goo covered fries he can eat.

sodomizer:If he were a foreign combatant, and could show that terrorism (which is a type of guerrilla warfare) is a legitimate tactic, he would not face the death penalty except for a showing of war crimes.

As an American citizen, he's going to get either (a) the death penalty or (c) biting down the pillow in Cellbock C until his anus collapses.

The fact that you of all people posted that made me lul on the inside.